American Wealth Inequality

[MiamiHeat]

This is the root of all our problems.

People like you, believing it's the government's responsibility to make our lives better. It's not. It's the en lement mentality that is destroying this great nation.

The government is here to work for the people of the country.

By the people, and FOR the people.

Our government is entrusted to run our nation and improve our lives.

I am EN LED to freedom of speech, freedom of persecution of my religious beliefs, among many other things.

These are things we are EN LED to as citizens of the United States of America.

It doesn't end there. There are things the government has neglected to do for at least 50 years now. It has to be done.

The government is here to serve the PEOPLE, not by giving us free money, but by providing us with the opportunity's to a better life - don't forget that.

[coyotes_geek]

Cynical viewpoint... what does the past have to do with the future? We are talking about reform. Things can be fixed and changed.

For example, Humanity has only proven that it is not possible to live in free society, free of persecution, etc.

Oh wait... America proved that it is possible.

I don't subscribe to your view of the world. We can fix this country.

IMHO being cynical of the government is the only way to fix things. Your faith in government's ability to fix things is dependent on the concept that the politicians who run it share your view, are immune to greed, and are genuinely interested in putting the well being of others ahead of their own interests. I see no reason why anyone should believe that. Politicians are nothing more than people who have chosen to get rich by spending other people's money to win popularity contests. Why should I have faith that they're capable of making things better when their track record of making things worse is clearly established?

[admiralsnackbar]

Government has only proven that they can improve the quality of life for those who work for the government. If you want to give back, do it through charity. Your dollars will go a of a lot further towards bettering someone's life than they will after being filtered through Washington DC.

I dunno... the government gave me a military to protect me from the bad folk, police and fire departments to protect me and rescue my cats from trees, a good school to learn in, a good library to study in, a mail system and internet to mail my college applications out through, and smoof roads and airways to get to school and work on.

I'm not saying there isn't a ton of waste in the government, but to take the stand that government hardly gives you anything in return for what you give it seems more ideological than reasonable... and I don't say that to break ya balls.

[Wild Cobra]

Major fail Miami...

The government is here to work for the people of the country.

Only in limited ways.

By the people, and FOR the people.

So?

Our government is entrusted to run our nation and improve our lives.

Where is the "improve our lives" clause please.

I am EN LED to freedom of speech, freedom of persecution of my religious beliefs, among many other things.

And I am en led to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"

Stop taking my money in unreasonable amounts.

These are things we are EN LED to as citizens of the United States of America.

Not to the point as you say. Where is the "redistribution of wealth" clause?

It doesn't end there. There are things the government has neglected to do for at least 50 years now. It has to be done.

Bull .

Social engineering and redistribution of wealth needs to stop.

The government is here to serve the PEOPLE, not by giving us free money, but by providing us with the opportunity's to a better life - don't forget that.

The only thing the government is suppose to provide is safety. Today, we need protection from the government.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Cons ution for the United States of America.

The general welfare of this nation is to be promoted. Why does my government discourage so many of us?

[MiamiHeat]

IMHO being cynical of the government is the only way to fix things. Your faith in government's ability to fix things is dependent on the concept that the politicians who run it share your view, are immune to greed, and are genuinely interested in putting the well being of others ahead of their own interests. I see no reason why anyone should believe that. Politicians are nothing more than people who have chosen to get rich by spending other people's money to win popularity contests. Why should I have faith that they're capable of making things better when their track record of making things worse is clearly established?

Because campaign reform will change the way politics work.

Once we take the pressure of raising money AWAY, and remove this power from the wealthy and corporations, politicians can go back to caring about the right things.

[Wild Cobra]

Because campaign reform will change the way politics work.

Once we take the pressure of raising money AWAY, and remove this power from the wealthy and corporations, politicians can go back to caring about the right things.

Why should they when they have people like you where they want?

[coyotes_geek]

I dunno... the government gave me a military to protect me from the bad folk, police and fire departments to protect me and rescue my cats from trees, a good school to learn in, a good library to study in, a mail system and internet to mail my college applications out through, and smoof roads and airways to get to school and work on.

I'm not saying there isn't a ton of waste in the government, but to take the stand that government hardly gives you anything in return for what you give it seems more ideological than reasonable... and I don't say that to break ya balls.

Don't you think there's a very noticeable and important distinction to be made between government providing defined services like infrastructure and police/fire protection and government getting into the business of "making life fair"?

[MannyIsGod]

Ok, I'll try one more time. At what point to you believe taxes become confiscatory? Furthermore, what delineates that point from other tax rates?

Save your breath (typing?) with WC. He and darrin dodge until the cows come home. While I don't always agree with some of the other conservatives on the board, they at least usually address your point and give a reason why they disagree. WC, Darrin and a few others aren't interested in debate.

[MiamiHeat]

Where is the "improve our lives" clause please.

Promote the general welfare?

And I am en led to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"

Stop taking my money in unreasonable amounts.

Here is where we get to the real issue.

What is "unreasonable" ?

Can you still afford a luxury home, clothes, food, vacations for your family, everything you could ever want?

For the rich, the answer is yes. You can still afford all of those things. Be very grateful for what you have. This country has given you much. You have everything you could ever need.That is NOT unreasonable

Not to the point as you say. Where is the "redistribution of wealth" clause?

The money is not being given to someone else, so it's not a redistribution of wealth.

The money is used to fund programs and such to improve the opportunities for all citizens of the country. Should you ever become bankrupt, this means you too.

The only thing the government is suppose to provide is safety.

incorrect. The government provides a lot more than that.

However, if you disagree with that philosophy, then here is the US Cons ution

Taken from the Cons ution -

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

[coyotes_geek]

Because campaign reform will change the way politics work.

Once we take the pressure of raising money AWAY, and remove this power from the wealthy and corporations, politicians can go back to caring about the right things.

What have you seen from either of our two political parties that makes you believe our politicians are interested in reforming the way campaigns work?

[admiralsnackbar]

Why should they when they have people like you where they want?

You do realize your cynicism deflates your own political ideas as much as it does MH's, right? If nothing can change to make his big, benevolent government come to be, why should anything change to make your small, benevolent model work? If we've already lost, the back-and-forth is only entertainment, not dialog, and certainly not action.

[MiamiHeat]

What have you seen from either of our two political parties that makes you believe our politicians are interested in reforming the way campaigns work?

I don't agree with the premise of this question

It's irrelevant if they support it or not.

It's what must be done.

When being a politician does not make you rich,

When having to run for office means you don't have to worry about raising funds to win a campaign,

when these things happen, the greedy and corrupt will have no use for the system and stop using it.

[Wild Cobra]

Promote the general welfare?

Yes. Promote. Not provide.

Here is where we get to the real issue.

What is "unreasonable" ?

Can you still afford a luxury home, clothes, food, vacations for your family, everything you could ever want?

It doesn't matter how much someone has. Taking more from someone because you think someone else can use it better is absolutely immoral.

For the rich, the answer is yes. You can still afford all of those things. Be very grateful for what you have. This country has given you much. You have everything you could ever need.That is NOT unreasonable

Why in are you waging war against the rich? They already pay more at the same percentage because they make more. It's just not right to increase the percentage too.

The money is not being given to someone else, so it's not a redistribution of wealth.

A large share is, in one way or another.

The money is used to fund programs and such to improve the opportunities for all citizens of the country. Should you ever become bankrupt, this means you too.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Cons ution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

However, if you disagree with that philosophy, then here is the US Cons ution

Taken from the Cons ution -

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,

Promote. Not provide!

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Yes, I agree with this one.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Yes, commerce.

Ever look up the 18th century definition of commerce? This is the most abused clause of the cons ution. Now they even want to claim Health Care under the commerce clause.

[coyotes_geek]

I don't agree with the premise of this question

It's irrelevant if they support it or not.

It's what must be done.

When being a politician does not make you rich,

When having to run for office means you don't have to worry about raising funds to win a campaign,

when these things happen, the greedy and corrupt will have no use for the system and stop using it.

So how do we go about creating this scenario where politicians don't get rich? And do you think our politicians are going to help us in this endeavor?

[MiamiHeat]

So how do we go about creating this scenario where politicians don't get rich? And do you think our politicians are going to help us in this endeavor?

Think deep down inside, some of these politicians hate the way the game works.

Most of them just go along with it. You play the game, or you lose.

If you want to do any good in this country, you have to play along. Do 5 corporations a favor, just so you can get that 1 passion project done for your community.

I would put a bet that they don't like it either.

So yeah, if there was a rise of support from the people, they could go to their masters and force this through.

[coyotes_geek]

Think deep down inside, some of these politicians hate the way the game works.

Most of them just go along with it. You play the game, or you lose.

If you want to do any good in this country, you have to play along. Do 5 corporations a favor, just so you can get that 1 passion project done for your community.

I would put a bet that they don't like it either.

So yeah, if there was a rise of support from the people, they could go to their masters and force this through.

I would absolutely love for you to be right. I have my doubts that you are.

[MiamiHeat]

It doesn't matter how much someone has. Taking more from someone because you think someone else can use it better is absolutely immoral.

I understand your line of thought, but again, it's immoral.

The rich have an obligation. Just as many other people do in their fields.

If I had the power to help cure cancer, a power that nobody else has, I have an obligation to do it. Nobody else can do it but me. If I neglect this obligation and squander my power, the cancer never gets cured and the world continues to suffer.

The rich have all the power. They fund businesses, fund new industries, research, etc...

I would like to give more of this power to the government in the form of funding programs, regulations, etc... and not private individuals to secretly run this country.

Why in are you waging war against the rich? They already pay more at the same percentage because they make more. It's just not right to increase the percentage too.

I'm not waging war against the rich.

If you have a better plan, I'm sure a lot of people will listen.

Do you have one?

Promote. Not provide!

Semantics. That's really petty. Are you trying to justify your ideological existence through any means? Because this is weak.

Are you sure you aren't just angry at something you haven't realized?

To promote something is to

2 a : to contribute to the growth or prosperity of : further <promote international understanding>

b : to help bring (as an enterprise) into being :

Yes, I agree with this one.

Ok, so you agree. The role of government does not stop there. Times have changed in 200 years.

The spirit of providing roads, post offices, and such is the same as providing other things. The framers of this nation, they hold true to the philosophy that the government is there to create a more perfect union, so that it's citizens will not suffer in any way.

Ever look up the 18th century definition of commerce? This is the most abused clause of the cons ution. Now they even want to claim Health Care under the commerce clause.

Times change.

To let rich corporations and executives to roam free without regulations?

There is only ONE logical conclusion that will result from this = they will be greedy, selfish. their own interests.

Who is to save the people from this?

The government. Nobody else has the power.

Unless you promote the citizens of this nation to exercise the only power they have left? Violence?

[MiamiHeat]

I would absolutely love for you to be right. I have my doubts that you are.

Politicians have been stiff-armed and bullied.

If they do not do what X corporations of very powerful businessmen want, then what comes next is easy.

These powerful wealthy beings pull all political funding, immediately find someone else who WILL do their bidding, and put all of their funding behind that guy.

Then politically assassinate the good politician.

Rinse and repeat over a few generations, and this is what we are left with in America.

It has to stop. I believe, deep down, some politicians don't like it either. Not everyone is evil and corrupt.

What we have now has been forced upon us, by corrupt, greedy wealthy FOR PROFIT individuals and corporations, who found ways to exploit this nation to further their agendas and pockets.

[TeyshaBlue]

Save your breath (typing?) with WC. He and darrin dodge until the cows come home. While I don't always agree with some of the other conservatives on the board, they at least usually address your point and give a reason why they disagree. WC, Darrin and a few others aren't interested in debate.

Apparently.

[z0sa]

The rich have all the power. They fund businesses, fund new industries, research, etc...

I would like to give more of this power to the government, and not private individuals to secretly run this country.

Jesus... let's just be straight socialists already.


Always more power to the government, let's take x power from the individual. Why don't some understand that the more influence in our daily lives the government exerts, the less freedom one enjoys?

[MiamiHeat]

Jesus... let's just be straight socialists already.


Always more power to the government, let's take x power from the individual. Why don't some understand that the more influence in our daily lives the government exerts, the less freedom one enjoys?

I agree with you in principle

but I was referring to economic policies, not wide-sweeping changes to our way of life.

[admiralsnackbar]

Don't you think there's a very noticeable and important distinction to be made between government providing defined services like infrastructure and police/fire protection and government getting into the business of "making life fair"?

I agree there is an important distinction, sure, but the line between necessity and fairness is a blurry one for me, most clearly explicit in the example of the police. There is no clear right and wrong, so we create laws to make life more fair in order to make people more willing to do business with each other, to live together, to vote together. The police and fire departments only purpose then becomes to make life fair -- if you suffer at the hands of another, you have recourse to justice. The necessity of it and the fairness of it are indistinguishable because they serve the same purpose: to help the individual as well as the state.

On to public education, which was proposed by Jefferson to serve as an equalizing force in society so that all citizens could be; a) taught to see their duties as citizens; b) given an intellectual and social common ground regardless of social station, and; c) taught the skills necessary to be a productive member of society. That was a means of addressing a necessity (creating critical, patriotic citizens) as well as an effort to make life fair (give all people a foundation to prosper with). Again, as fares the individual, so fares the state.

When it gets to questions of bigger abstractions like taxation, I think it all has to do with the time-line you're looking at things on. Take stereotypical example of affirmative action. You can look at the issue entirely from a present perspective (ie, "the now") and say " these people who can skate into college while I have to bust my ass... we should have a meritocracy." And that's all well and good -- but from a historical perspective you're forced to admit that the reason you're in the position to be meritorious is as much where you came from as how hard you've worked. Would you have been as good a student if you had grown up with illiterate or immigrant parents? Would you have had time to study so hard if you had to work because you were so poor? Would you be exposed to the education you had if your skin color were different? Etc. Likewise, looking towards the future, you have to ask yourself whether it's good for the country (politically and economically) to continue perpetuating illiteracy, poverty, racism, etc. And then the question becomes whether or not you feel responsible to change historical cycles to fit more in line with the egalitarian principles you grow up learning. Current taxation models aren't much different than affirmative action, philosophically, so, like I said, you can look at it in the present-tense, or you can look at it more broadly, and I think that will ultimately determine where you fall on the issue.

Is it wasteful? Yes. You can look at people under the poverty line and feel jealous that they get a free ride on your tab whilst you bust your ass and get taxed for the trouble, but the fact is that they're ed, they will have children who are ed, and they will up the country by being this way -- they make uncritical voters, unskilled workers, and desperate, angry neighbors (see the disenfranchised gangsta and evangelical white trash cultures). The odds that a person will break out from their, err... "historical bondage" are low, and get lower for every year they are deprived from a seat in the mainstream (economically, educationally, racially, etc), so very often tax-breaks, public education, affirmative action, and welfare amount to money thrown down the toilet... but they work sometimes (they're cheaper than prisons, at any rate), and they are consistent with the ideal of equality some of us strive for.

You can say a church or charity does more good than a government agency, and in many cases you may be right, but no such en y can save you thousands of dollars a year and give you cash incentives to pursue a trade so that you can then join the rest of the taxpayers getting ed for the next wave of underprivileged people. Good for the state, good for the polity, good for the individual.

... did I just write all that? Sorry.

[admiralsnackbar]

Why don't some understand that the more influence in our daily lives the government exerts, the less freedom one enjoys?

It's a two-way street, though. The more freedom individuals have, the more they can endanger others. Moderation is a good thing.

[z0sa]

It's a two-way street, though. The more freedom individuals have, the more they can endanger others. Moderation is a good thing.

This is essentially "the" talking point of the War on Drugs, and I'd have to agree in principle but little more.

For example, how many deaths are caused by those high on cocaine or weed compared with alcohol? It's not comparable, of course, but alcohol is legal despite being far more dangerous. Why hasn't the government simply made all dangerous intoxicants illegal?

These strange (not really) double standards go on unquestioned while the War on Drugs continues failing and costing billions and billions. What else could we do with that money?

What we need is a detox, not a "fix". The system works, contrary to many's belief. We just need to wipe some of these slates clean and start working together towards achievable goals. Sadly, it could be too late.

[admiralsnackbar]

This is essentially "the" talking point of the War on Drugs, and I'd have to agree in principle but little more.

For example, how many deaths are caused by those high on cocaine or weed compared with alcohol? It's not comparable, of course, but alcohol is legal despite being far more dangerous. Why hasn't the government simply made all dangerous intoxicants illegal?

These strange (not really) double standards go on unquestioned while the War on Drugs continues failing and costing billions and billions. What else could we do with that money?

What we need is a detox, not a "fix". The system works, contrary to many's belief. We just need to wipe some of these slates clean and start working together towards achievable goals. Sadly, it could be too late.

The trouble with your example is that some people WANT to take drugs. Nobody wants to be poor, nobody wants to be unsuccessful, nobody wants to be ostracized. I stand firm that the only things that will ameliorate the income gap are education, tiered taxation, and the dismantling of corporations that endanger the economic well-being of the country.